Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Another accident - Thames @ Putney
621 views
Skip to first unread message
TidewayUmpire
Oct 19, 2012, 5:56:17 AM10/19/12
to
Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
On the morning of Saturday September 22nd 2012, in excellent conditions and while turning in the vicinity of the Black Buoy on the Putney Reach on an ebb tide, a Parr’s Priory RC men’s Vlll was drawn onto the Black Buoy and then a garbage skimmer moored to it and capsized. The crew and coxswain were thrown into the river.
The crew was all rescued and no one was injured, apart from minor cuts and bruises.
Parr’s Priory Rowing Club is very grateful and appreciative of the assistance given to the crew by members of Thames Rowing Club and Imperial College Boat Club who manned launches to effect a swift rescue.
Due to the pressure of water imposed on the boat by the ebb tide working against the mass of the garbage skimmer, the boat was severely damaged.
We were incredibly fortunate in so many ways.
Incident reports have been made to British Rowing and the Port of London Authority and an internal inquiry into the incident has taken place, the results of which mainly concern Parr’s Priory RC.
Of interest to the greater rowing community, however, are the following two findings
Buoyancy
The boats buoyancy compartments [two were damaged by impact] kept the boat afloat but inverted, held against the garbage skimmer by the pressure of the tide.
The buoyant but inverted hull provided a platform/refuge for the crew to cling onto allowing them to gather their wits and from which to either make their way onto the garbage skimmer to eventual rescue or be picked up from the water.
Heel restraints / foot extraction
All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
On the morning of Saturday September 22nd 2012, in excellent conditions and while turning in the vicinity of the Black Buoy on the Putney Reach on an ebb tide, a Parr’s Priory RC men’s Vlll was drawn onto the Black Buoy and then a garbage skimmer moored to it and capsized. The crew and coxswain were thrown into the river.
The crew was all rescued and no one was injured, apart from minor cuts and bruises.
Parr’s Priory Rowing Club is very grateful and appreciative of the assistance given to the crew by members of Thames Rowing Club and Imperial College Boat Club who manned launches to effect a swift rescue.
Due to the pressure of water imposed on the boat by the ebb tide working against the mass of the garbage skimmer, the boat was severely damaged.
We were incredibly fortunate in so many ways.
Incident reports have been made to British Rowing and the Port of London Authority and an internal inquiry into the incident has taken place, the results of which mainly concern Parr’s Priory RC.
Of interest to the greater rowing community, however, are the following two findings
Buoyancy
The boats buoyancy compartments [two were damaged by impact] kept the boat afloat but inverted, held against the garbage skimmer by the pressure of the tide.
The buoyant but inverted hull provided a platform/refuge for the crew to cling onto allowing them to gather their wits and from which to either make their way onto the garbage skimmer to eventual rescue or be picked up from the water.
Heel restraints / foot extraction
All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
Brian Chapman
Oct 19, 2012, 7:48:09 AM10/19/12
to
Carl
Oct 19, 2012, 7:54:51 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 10:56, TidewayUmpire wrote:
> Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
> This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
> <snipped: vital contents to concentrate on just 1 aspect of this excellent report>
> Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
> This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
>
> Heel restraints / foot extraction
> All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
> The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
> When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
> We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
>
Please may we know the amount of heel lift that the heel restraints
> Heel restraints / foot extraction
> All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
> The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
> When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
> We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
>
allowed on those shoes?
I agree that being able to tighten your feet into a shoe has always been
a really bad and dangerous idea, and that stopping some rowers from
doing this when they have these means at their disposal is an uphill
battle - the daft are sometimes incurably so. But the combination of an
>50mm heel cord with an already tight shoe is bound to trap your foot
in an emergency.
I don't see how one can arrange for a Velcro heel strap to self-release,
& this incident underlines the fact that in an emergency you may not
have the luxury of time and coordination to fiddle with devices that
might as well have been designed to entrap your feet.
Thanks in advance -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
TidewayUmpire
Oct 19, 2012, 9:54:37 AM10/19/12
to
The boat is away being repaired so I can't check, but I did check the boats heel restraints in the boat tents at HRR [not, I hasten to add, in an 'official' position]together with buoyancy, bow ball, top nut etc., on the Wednesday and at that time no heel was allowed to rise above the horizontal. Might have changed since then but I doubt it - the two users reported their heel restraints worked i.e they did not allow the foot to rise an excessive amount - but the feet were caught
Agree there seems to be no passive means to release Velcro, either accross the instep or round the heel.
However, its common practice to attach a length of cord to instep Velcro fastenings - in case of need one pull and both feet come out [as long as the heel is not held in by heel Velcro].
This, or something similar, might be the way forward
Agree there seems to be no passive means to release Velcro, either accross the instep or round the heel.
However, its common practice to attach a length of cord to instep Velcro fastenings - in case of need one pull and both feet come out [as long as the heel is not held in by heel Velcro].
This, or something similar, might be the way forward
TidewayUmpire
Oct 19, 2012, 9:59:24 AM10/19/12
to
Brian,
Don't think they are a new product but we will be advising the manufacturer of our experiences
We did have two launches on site but they came down from Barn Elms.
I think Thames and ICBC got there first
Don't think they are a new product but we will be advising the manufacturer of our experiences
"had Thames and Imperial not been there to assist would the outcome have been the same?"
As I said, we were incredibly fortunate and we do know it!
We did have two launches on site but they came down from Barn Elms.
I think Thames and ICBC got there first
Richard
Oct 19, 2012, 10:37:31 AM10/19/12
to
On Friday, 19 October 2012 12:54:52 UTC+1, Carl wrote:
> On 19/10/2012 10:56, TidewayUmpire wrote:
>
> > Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
>
> > This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
>
> > <snipped: vital contents to concentrate on just 1 aspect of this excellent report>
>
> >
>
> > Heel restraints / foot extraction
>
> > All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
>
> > The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
>
> > When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
>
> > We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
>
> >
>
>
>
> Please may we know the amount of heel lift that the heel restraints
>
> allowed on those shoes?
>
>
>
> I agree that being able to tighten your feet into a shoe has always been
>
> a really bad and dangerous idea, and that stopping some rowers from
>
> doing this when they have these means at their disposal is an uphill
>
> battle - the daft are sometimes incurably so. But the combination of an
>
> >50mm heel cord with an already tight shoe is bound to trap your foot
>
> in an emergency.
>
>
>
> I don't see how one can arrange for a Velcro heel strap to self-release,
>
> & this incident underlines the fact that in an emergency you may not
>
> have the luxury of time and coordination to fiddle with devices that
>
> might as well have been designed to entrap your feet.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance -
>
> Carl
Why not use elasticated laces (e.g. www.xtenex.com [1]) in fixed shoes? I haven't actually tried them myself, but I think they should enable the feet to be sufficiently firmly fixed in the boat for normal rowing and allow plenty of "give" if you need to get your feet out in a hurry (together, of course, with a properly adjusted and well maintained heel restraints). They should make it next to impossible to over-tighten the laces. Triathletes use them for quick transitions into their running shoes, and if they work for triathletes running they ought to work for rowers too.
> On 19/10/2012 10:56, TidewayUmpire wrote:
>
> > Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
>
> > This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
>
> > <snipped: vital contents to concentrate on just 1 aspect of this excellent report>
>
> >
>
> > Heel restraints / foot extraction
>
> > All heel restraints performed as designed but two crew, both of whom were submerged [one being forced to relinquish his hold on the boat] had problems extracting feet from shoes.
>
> > The problem with releasing the feet stems from the boat being equipped with shoes that are adjustable for the length of the foot by a Velcro strap around the heel designed to draw the foot up into the toe of the shoe when tightened.
>
> > When too tight, the Velcro strap rides against the Achilles tendon and traps the Calcaneus or heel bone below it thus preventing easy release of the foot, even though the heel restraints are deploying properly.
>
> > We are looking into practical solutions to enable a rower to release the Velcro straps around the heel and will update this post in due course
>
> >
>
>
>
> Please may we know the amount of heel lift that the heel restraints
>
> allowed on those shoes?
>
>
>
> I agree that being able to tighten your feet into a shoe has always been
>
> a really bad and dangerous idea, and that stopping some rowers from
>
> doing this when they have these means at their disposal is an uphill
>
> battle - the daft are sometimes incurably so. But the combination of an
>
> >50mm heel cord with an already tight shoe is bound to trap your foot
>
> in an emergency.
>
>
>
> I don't see how one can arrange for a Velcro heel strap to self-release,
>
> & this incident underlines the fact that in an emergency you may not
>
> have the luxury of time and coordination to fiddle with devices that
>
> might as well have been designed to entrap your feet.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance -
>
> Carl
[1] not an advert or a recommendation, just a product I recall seeing at a triathlon show a few months ago. And no, I wasn't competing!
johnf...@gmail.com
Oct 19, 2012, 10:52:44 AM10/19/12
to
This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
Henry Law
Oct 19, 2012, 11:00:30 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/12 10:56, TidewayUmpire wrote:
> Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
> This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
How good -- how very very good -- it is to see a factual description of
> Apologies for the lateness of this post but administrative procedures have had to be satisfied........
> This is posted to further awareness among the rowing community and because it and the findings would not be generally available from the NGB.
what happened and why. It reminds me of a monthly spot in one of the
aircraft magazines I used to read, in which the detail of CAA or FAA
incident reports were presented, in the dispassionate yet chilling
language of formal investigations, for the benefit of all readers.
It makes me boil with rage to think that Mr T Umpire (honour to him and
to his ancestors ... and I hope it is a "him" ...) has to post this
report here in order to allow the rest of us to read it, rather than
have it done by our so-called "governing" body.
Who do they think they are, to be too idle or disorganised to do the
rowing community this service (I make no comment on whether the cause is
more disgraceful than that).
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
Carl
Oct 19, 2012, 11:05:33 AM10/19/12
to
you can under the circumstances, my specific concern regarding heel rise.
As you say: "no heel was allowed to rise above the horizontal".
That's exactly the problem!. No heel should be allowed to rise by more
than 50mm/2", because anywhere beyond that causes exactly the lengthwise
tightening & consequent foot trapping which you so well described in
your report.
I'm driven to distraction by the folly of those who write safety rules
for others to follow yet, as here, have total ignorance of the critical
working limits of the foot release process.
Those heel restraints did comply with BR safety rules, which permitted
the heels to rise so far before any restraint that, with tightly fitting
shoes, the essential _passive_ release was then impossible.
When those charged with providing safety guidance lazily invent rules &
ignore available expertise, that's criminal negligence or plain stupidity.
As you say, it's probable that only timely interventions by IC & TRC
saved the day. But rowers throughout the UK are going afloat with
similarly defective equipment, lulled into believing that any old length
of cord will let them escape such an accident.
Rowing safety has too often depended on good luck. When safety depends
on good luck that is a fundamental failure of safety management. And
when that luck fails, we know how those responsible then circle their
wagons & work ceaselessly to shift blame onto the victims of their own
arrogance & ineptitude.
Had you not published your report here, who'd have known or been able to
learn about this incident? The case for open accident reporting is
further reinforced, yet accident reports filed with BR remain invisible
& unsearchable. That's crazy.
One final, vital point:
Please _do not_ look for ways to release the Velcro heel straps which
helped these rowers to over-tighten themselves into their shoes. That's
trying to hide a simple problem with a simple remedy under a mound of
over-complexity which will be misunderstood, misapplied & is bound to
fail. Simple heel restraints which limit movement to no more than 50mm
of lift are all you need. This works, every time. So do it properly
and, please, everyone stop messing with it.
Carl
Oct 19, 2012, 11:19:41 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 15:52, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
>
This large buoy lies at the end of a downstream bend and at the head of
> This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
>
a row of moored boats set at some distance from the bank. The Thames
has a large tidal range (~18ft) so the river changes shape considerably
within its shelving banks, which can allow visual reference errors
The buoy is also in a region close to the fastest of the ebb stream, so
it is very easy to think yourself in the right part of the stream & have
an over-close encounter in an up to 4kt flow. There is aso a real
problem of poor watermanship & spatial awareness among some rowers &
coxes, plus an alarming wet-behind-the-ears tendency to stop, chat &
disengage brain when turning. Thus boats get wrapped around this buoy &
the bridge piers downstream for failing to appreciate that the water is
not static & that such apparently fixed objects are really moving
through the water for most of the time.
The Embankment, with many rowing clubs, is on the outside of the bend &
behind the row of moored boats. Crews not boating from the Embankment
may turn above the buoy to save drifting down onto the bridge & tangling
with crews coming downstream. And then there are the complex navigation
rules of this part of the Tideway.
It ain't the easiest bit of water on which to row. Especially if not
thinking all the time. Especially if your fundamental safety gear is
defective on the advice of the sport's NGB.
Cheers -
Carl
Oct 19, 2012, 3:09:12 PM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 15:52, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
>
And you can see the Black Buoy itself on Google maps, just a few metres
>
NW of 51deg 28' 15.83", -0deg 13' 15.32", ahead of a moored catamaran.
It is biiiig.
It used to be said that there were 2 man-made objects easily visible
from space - The Great Wall of China & the Black Buoy at Putney - but
the Black Buoy was invisible to rowers
saraha...@gmail.com
Oct 20, 2012, 10:27:59 AM10/20/12
to
Sarah
Carl
Oct 20, 2012, 3:33:08 PM10/20/12
to
On 20/10/2012 15:27, saraha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 8:09:11 PM UTC+1, Carl wrote:
>> On 19/10/2012 15:52, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
>>
>>>
>>
>> And you can see the Black Buoy itself on Google maps, just a few metres
>>
>> NW of 51deg 28' 15.83", -0deg 13' 15.32", ahead of a moored catamaran.
>>
>> It is biiiig.
>>
>>
>>
>> It used to be said that there were 2 man-made objects easily visible
>>
>> from space - The Great Wall of China & the Black Buoy at Putney - but
>>
>> the Black Buoy was invisible to rowers
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers -
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 8:09:11 PM UTC+1, Carl wrote:
>> On 19/10/2012 15:52, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably a dumb question because I'm not familiar with the location. But is there any reason why these crews can't spin DOWNSTREAM of the buoy (whichever way the current is running) rather than above it?
>>
>>>
>>
>> And you can see the Black Buoy itself on Google maps, just a few metres
>>
>> NW of 51deg 28' 15.83", -0deg 13' 15.32", ahead of a moored catamaran.
>>
>> It is biiiig.
>>
>>
>>
>> It used to be said that there were 2 man-made objects easily visible
>>
>> from space - The Great Wall of China & the Black Buoy at Putney - but
>>
>> the Black Buoy was invisible to rowers
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers -
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
> The so-called 'Black Buoy' is also not black, but yellow... so you would think that people would be able to see it!
>
> Sarah
>
But please imagine, Sarah, the confusion you're now causing for our
>
> Sarah
>
non-British friends!
"It's the Black Buoy. Well, it was black once. Now it's yellow. But,
hey, we still call it the Black Buoy. Sure, we still warn rowers to
look out for the Black Buoy. What do you mean, they don't see it? Just
'cos now its yellow? What kind of a lame excuse is that?"
Bob Newhart would have had such fun with something like that.
Cheers -
Carl
PS Just back from Dorney & a wonderful still day of mild, gentle weather
with not a ripple on the water bar those made by the crews. Ending with
a glorious orange sunset over the starting end of the course. What a
day for rowing! But now the rain is just hosing down.
C
saraha...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2012, 3:19:31 AM10/21/12
to
>
> > The so-called 'Black Buoy' is also not black, but yellow... so you would think that people would be able to see it!
>
> >
>
> > Sarah
>
> >
>
>
>
> But please imagine, Sarah, the confusion you're now causing for our
>
> non-British friends!
>
>
>
> "It's the Black Buoy. Well, it was black once. Now it's yellow. But,
>
> hey, we still call it the Black Buoy. Sure, we still warn rowers to
>
> look out for the Black Buoy. What do you mean, they don't see it? Just
>
> 'cos now its yellow? What kind of a lame excuse is that?"
>
>
He hee - same confusion I'm met with on the Cam when I refer to the P&E (a pub called the Pike and Eel), which hasn't been the P&E since it was changed to the Penny Fenny about 7-8 yers ago, and has been subsequently shut for at least 2 years. We also still refer to the Gasworks (which is now a Tesco) and the Railings (which were removed sometime between Lents and Mays in 2002)...
> > The so-called 'Black Buoy' is also not black, but yellow... so you would think that people would be able to see it!
>
> >
>
> > Sarah
>
> >
>
>
>
> But please imagine, Sarah, the confusion you're now causing for our
>
> non-British friends!
>
>
>
> "It's the Black Buoy. Well, it was black once. Now it's yellow. But,
>
> hey, we still call it the Black Buoy. Sure, we still warn rowers to
>
> look out for the Black Buoy. What do you mean, they don't see it? Just
>
> 'cos now its yellow? What kind of a lame excuse is that?"
>
>
I love tradition!
Richard du P
Oct 21, 2012, 4:25:47 AM10/21/12
to
Classic London street direction to any harmless stranger
"..... then you turn right opposite where the cinema used to be ....."
In the 1960s I'll swear there was a corner on the Thames/Isis at Oxford, called "Haystacks", NOT because of any visible hint of agriculture. Dunno whether the name's been changed since, to something like "Nature Reserve"
Richard du P
"..... then you turn right opposite where the cinema used to be ....."
In the 1960s I'll swear there was a corner on the Thames/Isis at Oxford, called "Haystacks", NOT because of any visible hint of agriculture. Dunno whether the name's been changed since, to something like "Nature Reserve"
Richard du P
James HS
Oct 21, 2012, 12:16:09 PM10/21/12
to
and I row at Putney Town Rowing Club - now in Mortlake (nee putney) and opposite Mortlake Anlian and Alpha - now in chiswick!
To the incident - I think that there is a lack of awareness among coxes on some fairly basic steering 'methods' and the clearances that they need from obstacles.
It happens with our crews that have to spin before Chiswick bridge ...... and I bang one and on and on about the fact that it is much safer to go through the bridge and spin than spin in front of it, no matter how far in front, the crew can always let you down or misunderstand, and at approximately 1 metre a second of flow and an immovable object .......
To the incident - I think that there is a lack of awareness among coxes on some fairly basic steering 'methods' and the clearances that they need from obstacles.
It happens with our crews that have to spin before Chiswick bridge ...... and I bang one and on and on about the fact that it is much safer to go through the bridge and spin than spin in front of it, no matter how far in front, the crew can always let you down or misunderstand, and at approximately 1 metre a second of flow and an immovable object .......
johnf...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2012, 1:25:12 PM10/21/12
to
The crews I work with in the spring vary tremendously in ability, and that has a HUGE effect on the cox's ability to maneuver the boat. Some of our better boats (and almost ALL of the varsity program boats on the river) easily handle conditions that some of our novice boats would be helpless in. Especially on novices' first few outings, when (despite working beforehand in the tanks) they have almost zero power and/or major port/starboard power imbalances. Our novices go out later in the morning when there is less traffic on the river, and we don't let them out at all if winds are high or gusting. Even a highly experienced cox can have a difficult time with some of these crews. The problem is that the experienced coxes are confident and so sometimes they don't take into account the helplessness of their crews. This is where the coaches have to get involved.
David Biddulph
Oct 22, 2012, 3:22:28 AM10/22/12
to
On 21/10/2012 08:19, saraha...@gmail.com wrote:
...
landmarks was "Glasshouses (now demolished)". I dread to think how many
years earlier they had been demolished.
David Biddulph
...
>
> He hee - same confusion I'm met with on the Cam when I refer to the P&E (a pub called the Pike and Eel), which hasn't been the P&E since it was changed to the Penny Fenny about 7-8 yers ago, and has been subsequently shut for at least 2 years. We also still refer to the Gasworks (which is now a Tesco) and the Railings (which were removed sometime between Lents and Mays in 2002)...
>
> I love tradition!
And during my days on the Cam (quite a while before Sarah's), one of the
> He hee - same confusion I'm met with on the Cam when I refer to the P&E (a pub called the Pike and Eel), which hasn't been the P&E since it was changed to the Penny Fenny about 7-8 yers ago, and has been subsequently shut for at least 2 years. We also still refer to the Gasworks (which is now a Tesco) and the Railings (which were removed sometime between Lents and Mays in 2002)...
>
> I love tradition!
landmarks was "Glasshouses (now demolished)". I dread to think how many
years earlier they had been demolished.
David Biddulph
ng...@aol.com
Oct 22, 2012, 4:01:03 AM10/22/12
to
On Oct 22, 9:22 am, David Biddulph <gro...@biddulph.org.uk> wrote:
The canal I row on in Germany has (of course) a post marking every
half km, so outing distances can be recorded. Some also have informal
names, e.g. 'Motorway Bridge,' 'Fishing Hut,' or the name of the
nearest village. Having a couple of weeks ago turned at a (for me) new
point in order to stay in front of a barge, I thought I would have to
enter simply 13km, only to find out that the point had a name,
'Lebendiger Fisch' (Living Fish).
No, I've no idea whether that refers to a particularly enormous one
spotted years back, or is a reflection on the quality of the water
elsewhere on the stretch.
BTW - it's a while since I rowed on the Tideway. Is there anything
remaining to mark either Crabtree or the Lep?
half km, so outing distances can be recorded. Some also have informal
names, e.g. 'Motorway Bridge,' 'Fishing Hut,' or the name of the
nearest village. Having a couple of weeks ago turned at a (for me) new
point in order to stay in front of a barge, I thought I would have to
enter simply 13km, only to find out that the point had a name,
'Lebendiger Fisch' (Living Fish).
No, I've no idea whether that refers to a particularly enormous one
spotted years back, or is a reflection on the quality of the water
elsewhere on the stretch.
BTW - it's a while since I rowed on the Tideway. Is there anything
remaining to mark either Crabtree or the Lep?
Rob Collings
Oct 22, 2012, 5:26:06 AM10/22/12
to
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:28:00 PM UTC+1, saraha...@gmail.com wrote:
> The so-called 'Black Buoy' is also not black, but yellow... so you would think that people would be able to see it!
You would think...
> The so-called 'Black Buoy' is also not black, but yellow... so you would think that people would be able to see it!
The last time I attended the Schools' Head, the bouy was yellow and just behind it was a bright jacket wearing, loud megaphone wielding marshal. Multiple crews still managed to foul it.
Rob.
Henry Law
Oct 22, 2012, 5:55:16 AM10/22/12
to
"avoiding" it. The former requires visual acuity and attention; the
latter boatmanship (a much rarer commodity).
Richard du P
Oct 22, 2012, 6:29:44 PM10/22/12
to
The LEP wharf [like most wharfs on London's river] is now I think an estate of "town houses"
Richard du P
0 new messages